![]() |
![]() |
|
|||||||
| Fantasy Island A place for the discussion of belief. |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
This idea of scientific and direct proof, from a previous thread, got me thinking about Anthropomorphic Climate Change and the proofs that are offered for it.... such as models and then/now snap shots.
I'm curious to know what the more scientific of you think about this new hysteria that has been given scientific 'merit'. |
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
I think you mean anthropogenic?
__________________
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; ..." Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) "Beer, if drunk with moderation, softens the temper, cheers the spirit and promotes health." Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) |
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Well, a bunch of predictions were made from the 70s onwards and, broadly speaking they have been correct. Some predictions haven't been quite right, but I understand that some of the longer-term predictions (eg about rate of melting of the icecaps) have been found to have been understated. That means, scientifically speaking, the theory is correct supported noting some inexactitude in the science.
From what I see, the public alternative view: - generally is based on a preference for ideology over evidence - makes stuff up and obtusely misinterprets the science (in almost exactly the same way as creationists do with evolution) - cherry-picks data - relies on a grand conspiracy theory that makes the moon landing conspiracies look convincing. Generally, it seems to me that the people who hold these views are either those members of the media who have finally sunk so low that they hold fairness and facts not merely to be of little account but to be of no account, or are the pitiable kind of people driven made by fears of conspiracies who used to have to hand out little badly-photocopied pamphlets, or wear cardboard signs, on streetcorners, but who have found a 'voice' via the internet. That's what I think.
__________________
|
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
no, it's all a great big conspiracy, he means "anthropomorphic"; worshipped, as we know, by Bob Brown and the dangerousgreens
__________________
|
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
What WAS said. I'm not a climate scientist but the science all seems fairly straight forward to me.
Any examples of hysteria?
__________________
'Those who invalidate reason ought seriously to consider whether they argue against reason with or without reason: if with reason, then they establish the principle that they are labouring to dethrone: but if they argue without reason (which, in order to be consistent with themselves they must do), they are out of reach of rational conviction, nor do they deserve rational argument'-Ethan Allen |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
ROFLMAO... yes I do.
Can one of the mods edit that please... for some reason I don't understand... I can't. Last edited by Sappho; 7th January 2012 at 04:01 PM. |
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I won't edit your first post as understanding the continuity of the thread is needed. Perhaps rephrase some questions with regard the previous answers.
__________________
. . . “Sir,' I said to the universe, 'I exist.' 'That,' said the universe, 'creates no sense of obligation in me whatsoever.” ― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy The Nizkor Project- Logical Fallacies Atheist: n; A person to be pitied in that he is unable to believe things for which there is no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of a convenient means of feeling superior to others. —Chaz Bufe, The American Heretic’s Dictionary
|
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|